Abstract Climate change compels legal scholars to rethink the foundations of comparative law and develop approaches that move beyond surface-level comparisons of legal rules and practices. A significant strand of existing scholarship adopts a functionalist lens focused primarily on the observable ‘what’ and ‘how’ of climate legislation and litigation, while neglecting the epistemological and cultural dimensions of law. We propose a structuralist approach to comparative climate law—one that recognizes the plurality and depth of legal systems and interrogates the underlying normative structures shaping legal responses to climate change, thus looking beyond comparative law as a method to ascertain similarities and differences. Drawing on the theory of legal formants, and illustrating our argument through comparative climate litigation scholarship, we show how comparative climate law can better account for the complex nature of legal normativity. This conceptualization is essential to advance a more robust and contextually grounded field of comparative climate law.
Abstract European corporate climate litigation has grown rapidly, yet its relationship to corporate climate accountability remains undertheorized. This article proposes a five-element framework, adapted from Gupta and van Asselt’s accountability model, disaggregating accountability into relations, applicable standards, judging compliance, enforcement measures, and redress. A systematic review of European corporate climate litigation is conducted and the framework applied to assess the normative clarity with which accountability norms are articulated and the effectiveness of judicial approaches in producing accountability outcomes. Thus far, litigation has produced partial rather than complete accountability outcomes, and institutional factors remain a primary determinant of whether it can meaningfully close the corporate climate accountability gap.
Abstract This article offers the first global mapping and comparative analysis of climate litigation reaching domestic apex courts. Drawing on a novel dataset, it identifies more than 360 cases decided between 1995 and 2024, with a sharp rise since 2015. Apex courts are defined as the highest domestic judicial bodies with final jurisdiction over climate-relevant matters. Our analysis shows that apex court decisions lean modestly toward outcomes supportive of stronger climate action. Outcomes vary considerably across regions, defendant types, and litigation strategies: polluter pays cases show the highest success rates, while government framework challenges, despite attracting the greatest public and scholarly attention, show more mixed results. The analysis also traces the limited but growing influence of domestic apex court jurisprudence on regional and international climate adjudication. The findings offer a prima facie mapping of judicial receptivity and governance orientation rather than a full account of doctrinal nuance or implementation outcomes.
Abstract As the European Union moves from adopting to implementing the ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package, attention turns to the effectiveness of its climate governance framework. This article critically examines the EU procedural climate governance framework, particularly the Governance Regulation and the European Climate Law, to assess how procedural mechanisms support or hinder translating ambitious climate targets into legitimate outcomes. EU reliance on Member States for implementation is closely tied to the proceduralization of climate law. While these mechanisms aim to enhance governance quality, they also generate tensions: they may fall short of ensuring substantive accountability, and the complexity of climate legislation can undermine legitimate governance. To address these challenges, the framework must evolve into a more outcome-oriented model. Proceduralization, if reimagined, can help navigate the complex and shifting climate policy landscape by striking a better balance between legitimacy, stability, and adaptability.
Abstract In 2020, the Indigenous Gitanyow people in British Columbia, Canada initiated a sovereign major project review process, including a climate test. Since 2023, the Gitanyow have been developing this climate test further, and evaluations have now been completed for three projects. The test is composed of thirteen criteria and informs the Gitanyow’s broader sustainability assessment and decision-making. While having no formal place within Canadian impact assessment law, the test exemplifies the evolving legal landscape in Canada in which Indigenous nations increasingly influence major project development and attempt to fill gaps in colonial law.
